Which marque has never appealed to you?
22 September 2010, 11:56 PM
#91
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaguar & Audi are my two. I thought i wanted an XF at one point until i drove it, wasnt my cup of tea & i owned an A8 a while ago, it lasted two weeks. it was a dreadful barge.
I find both brands very bland to say the least.
I find both brands very bland to say the least.
23 September 2010, 01:25 PM
#93
I too have an issue with modern Porsches. Anything post 964 just doesn't get the juices flowing like the older cars did. Good cars...But, and its that "but" that irks me. Without going for a hyper-GT/RS version, the standard models are nowhere near as challenging or as raw as the earlier models, even if they are much faster and better handling. I drove a 1976 911 last month that had been rally-prepped, my god that was fun and I didn't even get above 70mph, when compared to my experience of a 996 Carrera, well, it was dull in comparison.
But enough Porsche bashing; As they aren't alone, I currently have issues with alot of modern cars; Marques I once paid interest in now no longer float my boat, here's few:
Current VWs; Since the loss of the R32, nothing. Golf R is just a S3 in drag (and yet another 4-pot turbo hatch...yawn). Scirocco is so good looking...BUT, no 3.2 (or 3.6), and no AWD. Idiots
Post 1996 Jaguars: no manual gearbox options on any of their "R" models (whereas TWR used to do manual v12s on ultra rare special order sport pack and RS models). Earlier cars seem to be ugly retro-fied versions of previous classics, current ones are just nuts. Early concepts offered so much, yet they were binned (xk180 as shown by f1 fan...it even had a manual gearbox too).
Aston Martin:- Pre Ian Callum cars are built in a shed, awesome looking until you drive one and realise it might be made using parts of the actual shed (Virage and Vantage especially), Selling a £100K+ car with dash instruments straight out of a Ford Granada didn't help matters. Callum cars just seem to be constant rehashed derivatives of the DB7 design...can anyone tell between a DB9, DBS and a modern vantage?
And if you could, would anyone care?
Kia: Of recent years, they've made some cracking looking concept cars, then watered them down into ultra bland yawnboxes for mass production. OK its expected of a Korean company to make yawn boxes, but it can't go around doing these fancy concepts that grabs my attention then translate them into the most boring thing on the planet.
Peugeot; What is the point when you can get a Citroen with the same chassis/running gear for less money? (same can be said for any non-sporty VW/Audi vs. Skoda/Seat). Both marques are ugly, especially Pugs with their Cheshire-cat "I can run over pedestrians" grill.
Toyota: since the demise of the Supra (which in standard form was not that special to drive). Its made nothing noteworthy for a long time that interests the petrolhead. Then there is this hyflid-cynical-drive...congratulations Toyota you've made a petrol engine car that most small eco-diesels can out-perform on MPG. Fail. Double fail for using it on the Lexus.
Lexus: Yawn
Nissan: Skyline; Nissan's attempt at ***** waving. Anything else...Zzzzz. Parts prices: £££££ (Nissan Tax
).
Vauxhall: Most of their cars are dull, barring the odd exceptions: Monaro Superb; VXR8: ugly as sin. Get Holden to make and export the "coupe 60" concept to the UK and you may grab my attention again (and my money).
Honda: NSX excepted, the only perfect car they've ever made, yet its still flawed; It needed a 4.0 Vtec V8 to make proper use of the chassis.
Ford, post Cosworth and post "XR/RS" (1995? ). Even a standard pinto engined Sierra was a hoot to drive compared to a Mundano. Also noted as the maker of the most lethargic and torqueless v6 engine in existence (Mondeo V6), as also found in the Jag X-type - compare that to an XR4 (if you've ever driven one that's not rusted into oblivion), its not any faster, but it makes a better noise and is far more fun to drive.
Lotus post Elise: Come on make something based on a different chassis. Stretching it into a 2+2 and adding carbon fibre doesn't count. And stop using Toyota for your engines, especially that god awful 2.0VVTLi thing.
BMW; The ultimate driving machine. Yet becoming more lardy, less focussed and more automated as the years progress. The M-cars seem to have stopped from being raw, back to basics performance saloon cars, and turned into ultra high BHP automated rocket ships, with a extra helping of Grand Tourer comfort/gadgets for good measure. (M3CSL excepted of which no replacement exists).
Rover. No explanation required
Although I also have a weird curiosity to drive all old BL cars (including a Princess, Landcrab, Maxi, Marina etc.) just to see how crap they were
Modern Minis: Cynical retro-ness at its worst. The only one that appealed to me is the pre facelift JCW (supercharged). But even despite the handling and poke, I struggle to get past the retro-ugliness of the things, nor the driving position. Or the feeling that need to be a girl or have ****** hairstyle to drive one.
Smart: Make a roadster or fortwo with 150+bhp and a proper gearbox, and I maybe interested (yes I have seen the bike engine conversions, but I can't be arsed to mess about converting it).
But enough Porsche bashing; As they aren't alone, I currently have issues with alot of modern cars; Marques I once paid interest in now no longer float my boat, here's few:
Current VWs; Since the loss of the R32, nothing. Golf R is just a S3 in drag (and yet another 4-pot turbo hatch...yawn). Scirocco is so good looking...BUT, no 3.2 (or 3.6), and no AWD. Idiots
Post 1996 Jaguars: no manual gearbox options on any of their "R" models (whereas TWR used to do manual v12s on ultra rare special order sport pack and RS models). Earlier cars seem to be ugly retro-fied versions of previous classics, current ones are just nuts. Early concepts offered so much, yet they were binned (xk180 as shown by f1 fan...it even had a manual gearbox too).
Aston Martin:- Pre Ian Callum cars are built in a shed, awesome looking until you drive one and realise it might be made using parts of the actual shed (Virage and Vantage especially), Selling a £100K+ car with dash instruments straight out of a Ford Granada didn't help matters. Callum cars just seem to be constant rehashed derivatives of the DB7 design...can anyone tell between a DB9, DBS and a modern vantage?
And if you could, would anyone care?Kia: Of recent years, they've made some cracking looking concept cars, then watered them down into ultra bland yawnboxes for mass production. OK its expected of a Korean company to make yawn boxes, but it can't go around doing these fancy concepts that grabs my attention then translate them into the most boring thing on the planet.
Peugeot; What is the point when you can get a Citroen with the same chassis/running gear for less money? (same can be said for any non-sporty VW/Audi vs. Skoda/Seat). Both marques are ugly, especially Pugs with their Cheshire-cat "I can run over pedestrians" grill.
Toyota: since the demise of the Supra (which in standard form was not that special to drive). Its made nothing noteworthy for a long time that interests the petrolhead. Then there is this hyflid-cynical-drive...congratulations Toyota you've made a petrol engine car that most small eco-diesels can out-perform on MPG. Fail. Double fail for using it on the Lexus.
Lexus: Yawn
Nissan: Skyline; Nissan's attempt at ***** waving. Anything else...Zzzzz. Parts prices: £££££ (Nissan Tax
).Vauxhall: Most of their cars are dull, barring the odd exceptions: Monaro Superb; VXR8: ugly as sin. Get Holden to make and export the "coupe 60" concept to the UK and you may grab my attention again (and my money).
Honda: NSX excepted, the only perfect car they've ever made, yet its still flawed; It needed a 4.0 Vtec V8 to make proper use of the chassis.
Ford, post Cosworth and post "XR/RS" (1995? ). Even a standard pinto engined Sierra was a hoot to drive compared to a Mundano. Also noted as the maker of the most lethargic and torqueless v6 engine in existence (Mondeo V6), as also found in the Jag X-type - compare that to an XR4 (if you've ever driven one that's not rusted into oblivion), its not any faster, but it makes a better noise and is far more fun to drive.
Lotus post Elise: Come on make something based on a different chassis. Stretching it into a 2+2 and adding carbon fibre doesn't count. And stop using Toyota for your engines, especially that god awful 2.0VVTLi thing.
BMW; The ultimate driving machine. Yet becoming more lardy, less focussed and more automated as the years progress. The M-cars seem to have stopped from being raw, back to basics performance saloon cars, and turned into ultra high BHP automated rocket ships, with a extra helping of Grand Tourer comfort/gadgets for good measure. (M3CSL excepted of which no replacement exists).
Rover. No explanation required
Although I also have a weird curiosity to drive all old BL cars (including a Princess, Landcrab, Maxi, Marina etc.) just to see how crap they were Modern Minis: Cynical retro-ness at its worst. The only one that appealed to me is the pre facelift JCW (supercharged). But even despite the handling and poke, I struggle to get past the retro-ugliness of the things, nor the driving position. Or the feeling that need to be a girl or have ****** hairstyle to drive one.
Smart: Make a roadster or fortwo with 150+bhp and a proper gearbox, and I maybe interested (yes I have seen the bike engine conversions, but I can't be arsed to mess about converting it).
Last edited by ALi-B; 23 September 2010 at 01:26 PM.
23 September 2010, 01:37 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey Ali - pretty comprehensive list!
Have to partially agree on the BM thing - if you visit a BMW forum, everyone wittering on about i-drive, bluetooth, comfort packs, M Sport plastic tat that weighs lots and does nothing "sporty" etc, etc - IMO they are meant to be a "drivers car" not some luxobarge filled with pointless gimmicks. The M cars are way too heavy and loaded with every option ever made - all adding extra weight.
But then Audi is similar with S-Line stuff for it's cars and silly gimmicks too.
Both need to get away from gadgets and concentrate on lightness.
While I love my 335d, it's still almost 1700kgs.
Have to partially agree on the BM thing - if you visit a BMW forum, everyone wittering on about i-drive, bluetooth, comfort packs, M Sport plastic tat that weighs lots and does nothing "sporty" etc, etc - IMO they are meant to be a "drivers car" not some luxobarge filled with pointless gimmicks. The M cars are way too heavy and loaded with every option ever made - all adding extra weight.
But then Audi is similar with S-Line stuff for it's cars and silly gimmicks too.
Both need to get away from gadgets and concentrate on lightness.
While I love my 335d, it's still almost 1700kgs.
23 September 2010, 06:59 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
24 September 2010, 06:28 AM
#96
Dunk....oh yes!
Matteeboy...quite right.Too much gadgetry nowadays.Part of the reason bought an mx5 for our fun car.Steering wheel,gear stick,speedo and rev counter and no electric roof thank you....thats all you need.Not even got a glove box light!
Gadgetry in cars just puts me off. And companies that talk about 'greenmotion' blue motion,in fact anything enviromental stuck on the boot puts me off the whole marque.
Matteeboy...quite right.Too much gadgetry nowadays.Part of the reason bought an mx5 for our fun car.Steering wheel,gear stick,speedo and rev counter and no electric roof thank you....thats all you need.Not even got a glove box light!
Gadgetry in cars just puts me off. And companies that talk about 'greenmotion' blue motion,in fact anything enviromental stuck on the boot puts me off the whole marque.
24 September 2010, 08:44 AM
#97
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have an issue with modern Porsches. Anything post 964 just doesn't get the juices flowing like the older cars did. Good cars...But, and its that "but" that irks me. Without going for a hyper-GT/RS version, the standard models are nowhere near as challenging or as raw as the earlier models, even if they are much faster and better handling. I drove a 1976 911 last month that had been rally-prepped, my god that was fun and I didn't even get above 70mph, when compared to my experience of a 996 Carrera, well, it was dull in comparison.
But enough Porsche bashing; As they aren't alone, I currently have issues with alot of modern cars; Marques I once paid interest in now no longer float my boat, here's few:
Current VWs; Since the loss of the R32, nothing. Golf R is just a S3 in drag (and yet another 4-pot turbo hatch...yawn). Scirocco is so good looking...BUT, no 3.2 (or 3.6), and no AWD. Idiots
Post 1996 Jaguars: no manual gearbox options on any of their "R" models (whereas TWR used to do manual v12s on ultra rare special order sport pack and RS models). Earlier cars seem to be ugly retro-fied versions of previous classics, current ones are just nuts. Early concepts offered so much, yet they were binned (xk180 as shown by f1 fan...it even had a manual gearbox too).
Aston Martin:- Pre Ian Callum cars are built in a shed, awesome looking until you drive one and realise it might be made using parts of the actual shed (Virage and Vantage especially), Selling a £100K+ car with dash instruments straight out of a Ford Granada didn't help matters. Callum cars just seem to be constant rehashed derivatives of the DB7 design...can anyone tell between a DB9, DBS and a modern vantage? And if you could, would anyone care?
Kia: Of recent years, they've made some cracking looking concept cars, then watered them down into ultra bland yawnboxes for mass production. OK its expected of a Korean company to make yawn boxes, but it can't go around doing these fancy concepts that grabs my attention then translate them into the most boring thing on the planet.
Peugeot; What is the point when you can get a Citroen with the same chassis/running gear for less money? (same can be said for any non-sporty VW/Audi vs. Skoda/Seat). Both marques are ugly, especially Pugs with their Cheshire-cat "I can run over pedestrians" grill.
Toyota: since the demise of the Supra (which in standard form was not that special to drive). Its made nothing noteworthy for a long time that interests the petrolhead. Then there is this hyflid-cynical-drive...congratulations Toyota you've made a petrol engine car that most small eco-diesels can out-perform on MPG. Fail. Double fail for using it on the Lexus.
Lexus: Yawn
Nissan: Skyline; Nissan's attempt at ***** waving. Anything else...Zzzzz. Parts prices: £££££ (Nissan Tax ).
Vauxhall: Most of their cars are dull, barring the odd exceptions: Monaro Superb; VXR8: ugly as sin. Get Holden to make and export the "coupe 60" concept to the UK and you may grab my attention again (and my money).
Honda: NSX excepted, the only perfect car they've ever made, yet its still flawed; It needed a 4.0 Vtec V8 to make proper use of the chassis.
Ford, post Cosworth and post "XR/RS" (1995? ). Even a standard pinto engined Sierra was a hoot to drive compared to a Mundano. Also noted as the maker of the most lethargic and torqueless v6 engine in existence (Mondeo V6), as also found in the Jag X-type - compare that to an XR4 (if you've ever driven one that's not rusted into oblivion), its not any faster, but it makes a better noise and is far more fun to drive.
Lotus post Elise: Come on make something based on a different chassis. Stretching it into a 2+2 and adding carbon fibre doesn't count. And stop using Toyota for your engines, especially that god awful 2.0VVTLi thing.
BMW; The ultimate driving machine. Yet becoming more lardy, less focussed and more automated as the years progress. The M-cars seem to have stopped from being raw, back to basics performance saloon cars, and turned into ultra high BHP automated rocket ships, with a extra helping of Grand Tourer comfort/gadgets for good measure. (M3CSL excepted of which no replacement exists).
Rover. No explanation required Although I also have a weird curiosity to drive all old BL cars (including a Princess, Landcrab, Maxi, Marina etc.) just to see how crap they were
Modern Minis: Cynical retro-ness at its worst. The only one that appealed to me is the pre facelift JCW (supercharged). But even despite the handling and poke, I struggle to get past the retro-ugliness of the things, nor the driving position. Or the feeling that need to be a girl or have ****** hairstyle to drive one.
Smart: Make a roadster or fortwo with 150+bhp and a proper gearbox, and I maybe interested (yes I have seen the bike engine conversions, but I can't be arsed to mess about converting it).
But enough Porsche bashing; As they aren't alone, I currently have issues with alot of modern cars; Marques I once paid interest in now no longer float my boat, here's few:
Current VWs; Since the loss of the R32, nothing. Golf R is just a S3 in drag (and yet another 4-pot turbo hatch...yawn). Scirocco is so good looking...BUT, no 3.2 (or 3.6), and no AWD. Idiots
Post 1996 Jaguars: no manual gearbox options on any of their "R" models (whereas TWR used to do manual v12s on ultra rare special order sport pack and RS models). Earlier cars seem to be ugly retro-fied versions of previous classics, current ones are just nuts. Early concepts offered so much, yet they were binned (xk180 as shown by f1 fan...it even had a manual gearbox too).
Aston Martin:- Pre Ian Callum cars are built in a shed, awesome looking until you drive one and realise it might be made using parts of the actual shed (Virage and Vantage especially), Selling a £100K+ car with dash instruments straight out of a Ford Granada didn't help matters. Callum cars just seem to be constant rehashed derivatives of the DB7 design...can anyone tell between a DB9, DBS and a modern vantage?
And if you could, would anyone care?Kia: Of recent years, they've made some cracking looking concept cars, then watered them down into ultra bland yawnboxes for mass production. OK its expected of a Korean company to make yawn boxes, but it can't go around doing these fancy concepts that grabs my attention then translate them into the most boring thing on the planet.
Peugeot; What is the point when you can get a Citroen with the same chassis/running gear for less money? (same can be said for any non-sporty VW/Audi vs. Skoda/Seat). Both marques are ugly, especially Pugs with their Cheshire-cat "I can run over pedestrians" grill.
Toyota: since the demise of the Supra (which in standard form was not that special to drive). Its made nothing noteworthy for a long time that interests the petrolhead. Then there is this hyflid-cynical-drive...congratulations Toyota you've made a petrol engine car that most small eco-diesels can out-perform on MPG. Fail. Double fail for using it on the Lexus.
Lexus: Yawn
Nissan: Skyline; Nissan's attempt at ***** waving. Anything else...Zzzzz. Parts prices: £££££ (Nissan Tax
).Vauxhall: Most of their cars are dull, barring the odd exceptions: Monaro Superb; VXR8: ugly as sin. Get Holden to make and export the "coupe 60" concept to the UK and you may grab my attention again (and my money).
Honda: NSX excepted, the only perfect car they've ever made, yet its still flawed; It needed a 4.0 Vtec V8 to make proper use of the chassis.
Ford, post Cosworth and post "XR/RS" (1995? ). Even a standard pinto engined Sierra was a hoot to drive compared to a Mundano. Also noted as the maker of the most lethargic and torqueless v6 engine in existence (Mondeo V6), as also found in the Jag X-type - compare that to an XR4 (if you've ever driven one that's not rusted into oblivion), its not any faster, but it makes a better noise and is far more fun to drive.
Lotus post Elise: Come on make something based on a different chassis. Stretching it into a 2+2 and adding carbon fibre doesn't count. And stop using Toyota for your engines, especially that god awful 2.0VVTLi thing.
BMW; The ultimate driving machine. Yet becoming more lardy, less focussed and more automated as the years progress. The M-cars seem to have stopped from being raw, back to basics performance saloon cars, and turned into ultra high BHP automated rocket ships, with a extra helping of Grand Tourer comfort/gadgets for good measure. (M3CSL excepted of which no replacement exists).
Rover. No explanation required
Although I also have a weird curiosity to drive all old BL cars (including a Princess, Landcrab, Maxi, Marina etc.) just to see how crap they were Modern Minis: Cynical retro-ness at its worst. The only one that appealed to me is the pre facelift JCW (supercharged). But even despite the handling and poke, I struggle to get past the retro-ugliness of the things, nor the driving position. Or the feeling that need to be a girl or have ****** hairstyle to drive one.
Smart: Make a roadster or fortwo with 150+bhp and a proper gearbox, and I maybe interested (yes I have seen the bike engine conversions, but I can't be arsed to mess about converting it).
Hey Ali - there is a special part of Hyde Park put aside just for you
24 September 2010, 08:54 AM
#98
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to partially agree on the BM thing - if you visit a BMW forum, everyone wittering on about i-drive, bluetooth, comfort packs, M Sport plastic tat that weighs lots and does nothing "sporty" etc, etc - IMO they are meant to be a "drivers car" not some luxobarge filled with pointless gimmicks. The M cars are way too heavy and loaded with every option ever made - all adding extra weight.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
andy97
Computer & Technology Related
12
16 September 2015 08:07 PM